Heatmap research firm EyeTrackShop (via Business Insider) put 3 ads in front of 50 men and 50 women to see where their eyes went when presented with two racy fashion ads, and one fairly standard auto ad. While Saab isn’t exactly a hot rod, how did the guys and gals view the hot bods?

For the H&M picture of a model in a bikini, one group was immediately drawn to the bikini top/model’s bosom, the other was pulled in by the face. Ladies, give the guys a hand. Even for a swimsuit model, most guys are looking you in the eye (or at least the facial area) before they check out anything else.

Women start at the chest first, and actually spend more time there than men. Not only do men spend more time than women looking at the model’s face, they spend nearly twice as much time looking at the model’s face than any of the other areas – torso, legs and text included. Even though the visualization path is similar for men and women, women actually spend more time reading the surrounding text (areas 5 and 6 above) and more women noticed it to begin with. The menu on the left was the 2nd most engaging point on the page for men.

Overall, the eye path suggests that a pretty face will draw men in, but only on to the most prominent additional information. Considering that the ad is for a bikini, perhaps men tune out on the pricing and description information when they realize the product isn’t for them.

Moving on to the Reebok ad (the one pictured above on the right), where there’s zero text and the product is somewhat less obvious, is there a pronounced difference?

Somewhat. Both men and women spend the most time on the model’s face, but the men’s next destination is the model’s bottom, while women spend more time on the shoes after taking in the complete picture. Men seem to skip over them almost entirely.

Ladies, now you know why you see ALL of those shoe ads on Facebook.

Finally, for a less sexy (no offense, Saab) ad for a car, where’s the difference in viewing?

While neither gender is highly attracted to the logo, women spend more time on it than men. The image of the car gets a longer gaze from men, but both men and women spend the most time checking out the car’s additional text information.

So what’s to be learned from all of this? Men are still the highly visual creatures  we’re always being told they are, but women are the ones who generally take in more detail. Everyone likes a pretty face, but advertisers who want to capitalize on that should make sure that any important information that both genders need to see is at eye level (of the model).  Women are more likely to take in the total picture, so while sexy images might sell, it’s only if there’s a clear product or bit of information for eyes to land on once they’ve been drawn in.

Meaning there’s now a documented reason why American Apparel’s weird sexual ads aren’t doing a lot to help sales.

CBS News reported on Monday that pedestrians walking by the latest Calvin Klein billboard in New York City at East Houston and Lafayette have spotted something highly inappropriate in the ad. These folks donâ€t find Lara Stoneâ€s almost-naked body offensive; rather, they believe a hidden curse word was planted in the photo.

The table behind and to the left of Stone supposedly forms an “F,” while her underwear bottom forms a “U.” Get where weâ€re going with this? Then, to Stoneâ€s right, the “C” and “K” of the Calvin Klein logo complete the subliminal naughty word. {CBS News via Racked NY}

Our first thought upon reading this news was that the alleged curse word must have been spotted by someone with way too much time on their hands. First of all, the images of Stone for this ad campaign are beyond cool, as is the television commercial, and secondly, why would Calvin Klein risk creating this kind of controversy? But now we canâ€t look at the ad and not see it. The question remains whether Calvin Klein did it on purpose and how the label will defend the situation.

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare Oh My!

Our technology-infused culture has become over-saturated and overwhelming, don’t you think? It’s not easy sifting through the messages, texts, check ins, emails and tweets that bombard us every minute of every day.

A panel of in-the-know celebrities and industry insiders gathered at the Hearst Art & Culture Hub for Social Media Week in New York City yesterday to discuss the techniques to utilizing today’s social technology in the most productive and beneficial ways possible.

The panel was moderated by Laura Brown, Hearst’s Features/Special Projects Director, who explores the role and growing popularity of social styling and social media in today’s digital world. The panel consisted of celebrity Denise Richards, Popeater.com Entertainment Columnist and Blogger Rob Shuter, indie fashion blogger BryanBoy, Lancome CEO Kerry Diamond and Leandra Medine of Man Repeller.

Almost as soon as it began, the discussion turned to the social media queen herself, Kim Kardashian. Celebrities like Kardashian use social media tools to connect with the public, gain exposure and drive their personal business initiatives. When launching her new fragrance Kardashian used her twitter followers as a focus group when she posted the pictures of two possible bottle choices, asking her thousands of followers, “What do you think?”  Whether or not the one voted best is the one chosen, twitter was a crucial tool for Kardashian in maximizing her influence and allowing her to hear what her fans want first-hand.

Denise Richards noted that it’s important to “have a goal and stay true to yourself” when connecting. Although she maintains everything she types is legitimate and sincere, misleading tweets seeming more contrived than genuine are streaming from the twitter feeds of many celebrities. We recently covered the topic of endorsement deals and contracts regularly stipulating stars to use social networking sites for brand and product-related advertisement. Kim Kardashian denies ever being compensated, but how likely is it that her deal for Reebok Easy Tone sneakers had nothing to do with her tweeting pics of her wearing the shoes at the gym saying “I love my Reebok Easy Tones” and including a link to buy them?

You may not know this, but the FCC does require tweets that are being monetarily compensated to include “AD” at the end of the message to clarify intent, as to not mislead the public. We rarely see this appearing on celeb messages even though law requires it.

Independent fashion blogger BryanBoy had a more grassroots approach to broaden exposure and engage an audience. He says that being himself, documenting his day-to-day life and sharing his love for fashion and style is what first made him famous. However sharing his personal dreams and encouraging others to do the same is what has skyrocketed him into the limelight. So much so that Marc Jacobs designed a handbag after him in his 2008/2009 Fall Collection. His success-achieving advice is to put  forth your true self and it will attract desired results. A big topic of the day was the emergence and acceptance of original bloggers like BryanBoy and Tavi, who are essentially “playing fashion editor” through social sites, offering styling tips, fashion advice and even trend forecasting. Social media sites have served as an unmatched platform for amateurs to build a trusted brand for themselves in the industry.

In essence many of the panel members shared personal experiences that hit on many of the same points. Lancome CEO Kerry Diamond shared her work with Pee-Wee Herman and his new “comeback.” What we already know and love about Pee-Wee is his unpredictability and crazy energy right? They launched a Twitter campaign in New York where the 80’s star would hop around popular locales in Manhattan and tweet his whereabouts to fans on twitter, encouraging all to come see him. It was a hit. People showed up all over the city to see Pee-Wee, even the New York Times stopped by to see what it was all about. Introducing Pee-Wee to Twitter was a cautious, well-orchestrated event that engaged his fans and made his return fun and spontaneous. Knowing Pee-Wee Herman as a brand and using the internet to broadcast is what made the launch so successful.

Whether it be from a business or personal perspective, a strong content strategy or product development strategy are key building a real-time measurement of branding success through social media. Joining such networks requires transparency, accessibility, and a strong self-identity.

Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott shot the photos for the new campaign, and while Stoneâ€s fall 2010 ad pictures were stunning, we have to say weâ€re less than impressed with the new shots. Stoneâ€s face looks absolutely beautiful, as always, and we love the black and white effect that nearly erases her hair, but the model should not be the main focus of a fashion ad. The clothes should be, and weâ€re not sold on the outfit because what Lara is wearing looks like it does not fit her. The pants in the left photo appear to be way too long and loose in the upper inseam, and the white jacketâ€s sleeves are too short. And is that a skirt she’s wearing over the pants?

Dare we say, Christina Binkley seems to be on to something in her suggestion that less tailored, poorly fitting clothes are foisted upon women under the guise of being on trend?

Perhaps Calvin Klein was going for this look on purpose, and Stoneâ€s stunning face does help make up for it. We wouldâ€ve liked to see more photos like the fall 2010 ones, and clothes that aren’t wearing the model though.

With millions of followers, stars like Kim Kardashian and big name brands like Reebok are making big bucks using Twitter as a means of advertising. It has been widely rumored that endorsement deals between businesses and celebrities actually contractually stipulate a certain number of product-related tweets per day.

Kim’s deal for Reebok Easy Tone sneakers has her tweeting pics of her wearing the shoes at the gym saying “I love my Reebok Easy Tones” and even including a link to buy them. She also recently tweeted “Where is there a Carl’s Jr in the valley? I’m seriously craving that salad!” In what we’re sure is just a coincidence, Kim is featured in some Carl’s Jr. ads aired this year. Now if that’s not obvious enough actress Melissa Joan Hart actually admitted that one of her contracts enforced a minimum of six promotional tweets per day. {The Insider}

Sandra Smith of Fox Business Network says that Kim’s sister Kourtney is also reportedly in on the money-making tweets, raking in about five to ten thousand per tweet. Looking at the Sponsored Tweets celeb list, Khloe  is the Kardashian offering the best bargain at a mere $2941.25 per tweet. “You’ve got Lindsay Lohan and a large number of celebrities that are reportedly getting involved in these tweets for pay,” Smith says. “Lindsay Lohan arguably has far fewer followers than some of the other big celebrities, but she’s still reportedly getting paid big bucks to participate.” According to Sponsored Tweets, the exact figure is $2985 per tweet.

As annoying as it is that someone can make what some people earn for 2 weeks (or more) of work in a minute and less than 140 characters, it does make sense. Twitter allows instant advertising to millions of people through the likeness of  their favorite celebs. Occasionally they do use the ability to reach out for good however. Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Jennifer Hudson and Lady Gaga were part of a recent no tweeting campaign that raised $1 million, and longtime Twitter celeb users Ashton Kutcher and wife Demi Moore use it to help fight sex trafficking and child sex slavery as well as the American AIDS Foundation. Ben Stiller uses his 140 characters  to raise education awareness helping build temporary schools for children in need.

When it comes to models though, how exactly do clients calculate what a model is worth?

Elena Greenwell, a model for online retailer Shopbop

Earlier this week, Jezebel published documents from an ongoing lawsuit involving models who claim their former agency was withholding payments. the most interesting part are earning statements where it’s discovered that for all of the prestige that comes with a Vogue editorial, the H&M ad running next to it was probably worth much more for the model. Specifically, it’s revealed that Vogue‘s day rate for models (at least in this case) is a paltry $250, and French Vogue‘s is $125. Don’t feel too bad – campaigns for H&M pay $60,000, J.Crew pays $15,000 for catalog appearances and booking campaigns for luxury brand ad campaigns can range from $35,000 to $172,500 – we’re asusming for more than one campaign.

While the money is obviously in ads, the editorial appearances are seen as a catalyst for launching commercial careers. The assumption being that the models in the commercial campaigns bring in at least as much as they’re paid in sales.

Today, the New York Times claims that online retailers see more value in more “relatable” looking models. While you may be able to relate to Karlie Kloss or Freja Beha Erichsen just fine, online retailers think they’ll influence a wider audience with slightly larger models (size 4, rather than size 0) who is good looking, but not in the “gorgeous, but I’d never be able to look like that” way that runway models can be.

There are enough photoshop disasters from fashion ad campaigns to remind us that the definition of relatable is still incredibly subjective, but Shopbop and Gilt both voice opinions that shoppers don’t want to see impossibly flawless models when shopping.

“We donâ€t want a model to appear intimidating in a way they do in a fashion show,” Gilt’s Alexandra Wilkis Wilson tells the Times.

Steven Reider, a manager at Elite Model Management says online  appearances haven’t “ever made anyone a star on the global playing field of models,” but if the money is made on the more commercial campaigns, does that matter? Bluefly, the only retailer mentioned in the Times’ piece to test the difference between using models and using headless mannequins noticed only a very small increase in sales when using people to promote the items. Customers, they found, placed far more value on being able to zoom in on details and view more detailed photos.

Does this, in fact, support the position of using models as clothes hangers rather than personalities? After all, if an actual clothes hanger brings in the same amount in sales, why bother with the more costly model? We actually think it points more to the need for the return of the 90’s style supermodel who was as much of a draw as the clothes. Beauty companies – perfume makers especially- have found celebrity endorsed products can equal big sales, so there’s obviously some real value in name or face recognition. Magazines – Vogue included, have seen increases in circulation by pushing models off the cover in favor of actresses, musicians and other celebrities. They may not have the recognition of  J.Lo or Beyonce, but wouldn’t models become more relatable if they were allowed to become celebrities in their own right again? Victoria’s Secret has done pretty well business-wise with that line of thought, in spite of the fact that most women buying underwear will probably never be able to relate to walking around wearing a million dollar bra (or contract, for that matter).

Instead of sultry hipster girls wearing lame hot pants and socks, American Apparel’s latest ads feature sultry hipster cartoon girls in various states of undress. {Copyranter via Stylelite}

The hosiery ad features butt-less tights that we’re assuming is a nod to Prince’s early sartorial choices (the ad is slightly purple), and an ad which ran in VICE… well, we guess American Apparel is selling merkins or eyebrow merkins now.

As controversial as some of their early ads were, we could see some segment of the population finding them appealing. These on the other hand… we’re not sure exactly what they’re selling, and we’re really not sure if anyone’s buying.

According to a press release from Deckers Outdoor Corporation, which acquired the Ugg brand in 1995, Brady adores Uggs and wears them all the time (doubtful), and company Chairman and CEO Angela Martinez said Mr. Giseleâ€s status as a highly noted football player and “style icon” makes him their ideal spokesman.

We were going to say that what that likely means is Brady is meant to make Uggs seem more masculine and thus more appealing to a wider population of men, but actually Uggs are already pretty masculine-looking and have somehow become associated with women and girls. The Uggs will probably, therefore, have the opposite effect on Brady. In other words, heâ€s liable to find his Ugg boots wearing him, not the other way around. The score for now: Ugg-1, Brady-0.

News spread this week of Christina Hendricks†starring roll in the fall ad campaign for trench coat label London Fog. The Mad Men actress†appearance in the ad pictures marks one more label in the celebrity-as-face-of-the-brand camp at a time when the battle between models and Hollywood types runs high.

The use of Hendricks is also noteworthy as she is well-known for her curvy, voluptuous body, though the The Cut is probably correct in their haste to point out that this likely does not mean a sea change is washing over fashion and curves are, for once, actually in. Still, it is nice to see a fresh star who has not done much in the way of product endorsement thus far at the forefront of a fashion label, curves or none.

London Fog has previously used ad staples like Gisele and Eva Longoria Parker as faces for the brand. {The Cut}

The photographs, taken by Nino Munoz, feature Hendricks in a trendy-for-fall leopard print trench and a simpler black one, with a lace cami peeking out.

Fashionista scored some backstage images from the photo shoot, and New York Magazine has video footage from the ad shoot.

Roger Sterling, a partner in the fictional agency Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce makes reference to a “Dr. Lyle Evans” when launching into a tirade against the Japanese executives of Honda, who his partners are trying to win as a client.

“Who the hell is Dr. Lyle Evans?” quips Pete Campbell.

Really Roger, who the hell is Dr. Lyle Evans?!

In this context, Dr. Lyle Evans is simply a subtle advertising play designed to get people talking about the episode, and one that’s worked out well.

Shortly after the episode, Dr. Lyle Evans became one of the fastest rising searches on Google as viewers tried to do a bit of digging to answer the question.

We’ll give credit to whoever is handling marketing over at AMC: the avatars for season 2 got plenty of people talking about the show online as they spread through various social media sites, and the faux historical references designed to get people searching and talking about the episode is a stealth, but very effective way to advertise the show without advertising.